Sniper video

[patrickt]

I don't think this will start a debate but an American soldier was shot by snipers in Iraq. The snipers were making a video of the shooting. The soldier's armored vest saved him and later when the troops had captured the now wounded sniper the soldier he'd shot, a medic, gave him first aid. There is an interesting video and a basic report of what happened. I just thought it was interesting.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-976420.php

[Ed Sane]

The sniper should be shot for breaking rules of combat (i.e. going after a medic)

[patrickt]

I saw no identification as a medic in the video and he was armed.

[USA-1]

Thank God for modern body armor.

[Ed Sane]

patrickt I was going off of the cited article, in which case medics do carry weapons to my understanding but they are to have visible patchs to show rank/status (something a sniper would have seen) and are protected against in the geneva conventions...

You even state "the now wounded sniper the soldier he'd shot, a medic, gave him first aid."

[Seth928]

patrickt I was going off of the cited article, in which case medics do carry weapons to my understanding but they are to have visible patchs to show rank/status (something a sniper would have seen) and are protected against in the geneva conventions...

You even state "the now wounded sniper the soldier he'd shot, a medic, gave him first aid."

The sniper may have seen it they may have not. On the video I can't see any indication that he is a medic and I doubt, without a scope, that the sniper would have seen one from that range. It has already been made abundantely clear that we are opperating outside the confines of the GC in this war. Not to mention that the insurgency isn't exactly a cosigner of the conventions.

[cpwill]

Thank God for modern body armor.

:confused: i thought it was all horrible body armor that wasn't suffecient to protect the troops and a sign of the continuing incompetency of the bush administration?

[USA-1]

:confused: i thought it was all horrible body armor that wasn't suffecient to protect the troops and a sign of the continuing incompetency of the bush administration?
Where have you been? That was years ago. Most of them have the good stuff now. Better late then never.

[dittohead not!]

Wow, what a video. Did you catch the sniper chanting "Alla Akabar"?

I'm not sure if that is spelled correctly, but doesn't it mean "Alla is great" or something like that?

Imagine shooting someone while chanting, "Jesus is Christ" or something similar. What a bunch of religious nutcases!

Of course, the American soldier was a true Christian, who turned the other cheek and helped his enemy. A true hero.

[The_Penguin]

Not to mention that the insurgency isn't exactly a cosigner of the conventions.
If they are not a co-signer to the convention and therefore are not under the same obligation as us to protect POWs then why should we treat their prisoners in a civil manner?

/me playing :devil:'s advocate...

[::Major_Baker::]

If they are not a co-signer to the convention and therefore are not under the same obligation as us to protect POWs then why should we treat their prisoners in a civil manner?

/me playing :devil:'s advocate...

beacuse we are Americans.

[dittohead not!]

I'm surprised that no one has brought this up already, but didn't our dear POTUS say that we didn't have to treat prisoners at Gitmo according to the Geneva Accords because they were "terrorists" and not "enemy combatants"?

If they aren't enemy combatants, do they have to abide by the Geneva Accords?

[Djj1973]

Even though they are not signers of the GC we treat them in accordance with the GC philosophy

[The_Penguin]

beacuse we are Americans.
That's not a very good explanation. Why is that we ought to be burdened with the idea that the gitmo prisoners get respectable treatment and our captured civilians and soldiers are beheaded? Why should we play by the rules and the opponents not?

[dittohead not!]

That's not a very good explanation. Why is that we ought to be burdened with the idea that the gitmo prisoners get respectable treatment and our captured civilians and soldiers are beheaded? Why should we play by the rules and the opponents not?

We are trying to eradicate the cockroaches, not become cockroaches ourselves.

[::Major_Baker::]

We are trying to eradicate the cockroaches, not become cockroaches ourselves.
some of us are anyways.

[towski]

That's not a very good explanation. Why is that we ought to be burdened with the idea that the gitmo prisoners get respectable treatment and our captured civilians and soldiers are beheaded? Why should we play by the rules and the opponents not?


Because if you take on the burden of declaring yourself as leader of the free world, a civilized nation, the greatest nation in history, the home of equal rights and democracy, you have an obligation to not just talk a good game, but to set a good example.

Besides the fact that this administration purports to hold itself to Christian values.

[Chidi]

Because if you take on the burden of declaring yourself as leader of the free world, a civilized nation, the greatest nation in history, the home of equal rights and democracy, you have an obligation to not just talk a good game, but to set a good example.

Besides the fact that this administration purports to hold itself to Christian values.


Perfectly worded. :clap:

[Djj1973]

Because if you take on the burden of declaring yourself as leader of the free world, a civilized nation, the greatest nation in history, the home of equal rights and democracy, you have an obligation to not just talk a good game, but to set a good example.

Besides the fact that this administration purports to hold itself to Christian values.


I would rather do more than look good on paper. Sure it is easy to say we must be perfect but lets face it we make mistakes we have ******s who feel like taking the law into their own hands and perform horrible acts like we saw in ABU GRAV. The answer is not to pack it all up and stop fighting for Iraq's freedom. The answer is exactly as we have done. Arrest and convict the ones responsible for those acts.

[Seth928]

If they are not a co-signer to the convention and therefore are not under the same obligation as us to protect POWs then why should we treat their prisoners in a civil manner?

/me playing :devil:'s advocate...

The answer to that is simple and straight foward. It is written into the Geneva convention that all signing must treat non-signing nations/groups according to the rules of the GC. When they do not we are free also to treat them as we wish without regard for the GC. In this case I fully believe that the insurgents have gone beyond GC protection but I agree with Major Baker's point we are Americans. The international eye is always on us and we should set an example. We have no obligation to treat them in a civil manner outside of our own military's code of conduct. However, being that we are one of the strongest nations on this planet we are always subject to public scrutiny from within and without. While what the insurgents do is wrong they are not subject to massive fallouts of support because they have little as is.

The insurgents have no protection in the international arena but we treat them with respect because 'we are better than that'.

[towski]

I would rather do more than look good on paper. Sure it is easy to say we must be perfect but lets face it we make mistakes we have ******s who feel like taking the law into their own hands and perform horrible acts like we saw in ABU GRAV. The answer is not to pack it all up and stop fighting for Iraq's freedom. The answer is exactly as we have done. Arrest and convict the ones responsible for those acts.


Oh I agree that the answer is not to pack it all up. However, I do feel that we have a moral responsibility to carry ourselves above the barbaric actions of others. If we don't I feel like we are selling short all those who went before us to create this incredible, successful democracy. We are also selling short the idea of the American Dream. I realize I'm a starry eyed idealist, but sometimes idealism is all the keeps "realists" from running roughshod over our principals.